DCC double reversing loop with crossover - will this idea work?

[AchimK]

Hello

 

I'm working on the track plan for the fiddle yard of a small (8 by 4 foot essentially) roundy roundy layout on a piece of ply.

The diagram shows my idea as to how to include two reversing loops by having a crossover (not a double slip) within them.

I'd like two reversing loops so that I don't have to reverse the trains when changing direction.

Entry to the lot is from the left or right. This is the lowest level.

 

Will this work at all on a DCC layout (with reversers correctly wired in) or can I rubbish it now and start afresh?

It might be a case of wanting too much in too little space.

 

Planning to use PECO track.

 

Many thanks trendsetters.

Achim

[Grovenor]

It will work electrically, but IMHO  it would be better in N rather than 00 given you only have 8 x 4.

[AchimK]

Thanks Keith!

[DCB]

Its a great concept.  Makes all te difference if trains can run clockwise and then anticlockwise.

Some models run the same way around layouts for years at a time and never run the other way.

  The more awkward question is can you get or build a suitable diamond crossing.

I am assuming it's N gauge, but every time I plan anything similar I can't find a crossing of the correct angle, including trying to recreate this in Anyrail  Peco N gauge code 80.

[TonyMay]

Why do you need two loops, one for clockwise one for anti-clockwise?  Because one covering both directions will suffice, take up less space and be a lot less complicated.

[Chimer]

4 hours ago, TonyMay said:

Why do you need two loops, one for clockwise one for anti-clockwise?  Because one covering both directions will suffice, take up less space and be a lot less complicated.

 

Presumably, because you can only use a single reversing loop once.  So everything eventually winds up pointing in the same direction .......

[TonyMay]

I mean like this:

 

[AchimK]

3 minutes ago, TonyMay said:

I mean like this:

 

 

Many thanks Tony, I appreciate your thoughts.

The way the up/downlinks will go (looping round at each end) means that a single loop like yours will actually take up more space (effectively being three circles space widthwise) than two loops with a crossover (i.e. two circles). See bad drawing for completion.

 

Many thanks for all comments!

Achim

 

 

[Phil Bullock]

And the advantage of your plan Achim is you can hold two longer trains in the loops but only one shorter train on Tony’s ...

[Harlequin]

Hi Achim,

 

You said in the OP, "This is the lowest level.". That rings alarm bells!... Are there more than 2 levels?

 

Even if there's only one level covering your storage and reversing loops that could be the reason why the design ultimately fails. Reaching stuck or derailed trains could become so tedious that it makes you reluctant to run the layout or not to run it as intended in the long run. And you will need to take special measures to know what trains are in what storage loops - cameras or train detection. Not insurmountable but you need to think these things through carefully.

 

Have you calculated the gradient(s) up to the upper level(s)? If they are too steep that will also affect how you run the layout, Again there are ways to deal with steep gradients but it pays to think them through first. (When you think about gradients remember to leave some distance to transition from level to grade and back again and try to avoid those transitions being within curves otherwise locos may derail.)

 

BTW: Holes in the bottom baseboard to access the reversing loops when there's a board covering them above are a pain in the neck in reality. I know from experience! Crawling around under the boards, scuffing your knees, getting dust on your clothes and contorting your arm to reach into the gap becomes an unwelcome chore.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Harlequin

[AchimK]

17 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Achim,

 

You said in the OP, "This is the lowest level.". That rings alarm bells!... (Are there more than 2 levels?)

 

Even if there's only one level covering your storage and reversing loops that could be the reason why the design ultimately fails. Reaching stuck or derailed trains could become so tedious that it makes you reluctant to run the layout or to run it as intended in the long run. And you will need to take special measures to know what trains are in what storage loops - cameras or train detection. Not insurmountable but you need to think these things through carefully.

 

Have you calculated the gradient(s) up to the upper level(s)? If they are too steep that will also affect how you run the layout, Again there are ways to deal with steep gradients but it pays to think them through first. (When you think about gradients remember to leave some distance to transition from level to grade and back again and try to avoid those transitions being within curves otherwise locos may derail.)

 

BTW: Holes in the bottom baseboard to access the reversing loops when there's a board covering them above are a pain in the neck in reality. I know from experience! Crawling around under the boards, scuffing your knees, getting dust on your clothes and contorting your arm to reach into the gap becomes an unwelcome chore.

 

 

Many thanks for your comments and thoughts Phil.

 

I have calculated gradients of 2.0 and 2.5% which my locos all managed well on the test setup I've run. Distance between this level and the one above is 120mm, tight but a workable compromise I hope. There is one level above with a 'long' scenic run and one further above with the main station/scenery. Very good point about transitions which I haven't allowed enough room for, thanks. Also a valid point about access which I have also planned from the sides and behind.

 

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Achim

[RobinofLoxley]

There's another thread somewhere with a discussion specifically about fitting that crossover into the loops. Are you intending  to use Flexitrack Achim?

[AchimK]

12 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

There's another thread somewhere with a discussion specifically about fitting that crossover into the loops. Are you intending  to use Flexitrack Achim?

 

Not in this section, I was planning to use Peco setrack for ease.

If you could point me to that discussion, that'd be marvellous. How can I find it? Unless you mean the one I have created myself in the layout planning area (almost identical title).

Many thanks, I'm amazed at everyone's responses and thoughts - terrific!

Achim

Edited March 12, 2021 by AchimK

[Chimer]

Here you go .....

 

 

[AchimK]

2 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Here you go .....

 

Amazing Chimer, many thanks for this.

Achim